Appearing Wednesday on MSNBC’s “The Beat,” hosted by fellow Native American Ari Melber (he was born in Seattle, she, in Oklahoma City), Sen. Liz Warren (D-MA), the great paladin of truth and reliability, the purveyor of principle and Pow Wow Chow, the Diva of Democracy (who seems almost every week to errantly claim that the U.S. constitutional republic is a “democratic” hive where politicians can do whatever they wish under the guise of “for the people”) juuust couldn’t stop herself from attacking Elon Musk and his bid to actually bring freer speech back to Twitter.
Melber asked, ‘You have warned about the growing power of big tech. What do you see in Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter?’
To which Warren responded:
I see that we need to make two big changes. The first one is we need a wealth tax in America. Let’s talk about how Elon’s purchase here was subsidized by tens of millions of people who have paid their taxes every year.
Which implies that, first, Elon Musk didn’t pay “his fair share in taxes,” a lofty-sounding canard that helps serve not only to demonize Mr. Musk in the eyes of some taxpayers who believe her, but also serves to promote the dream she shares with many acquisitive Democrats, to pass a federal so-called “Wealth Tax.”
This, itself, requires some unfolding, and, thankfully, the noble Elizabeth Nolan Brown did the heavy lifting for us and for Reason, on Tuesday, April 26:
On Monday, Jayapal (Rep Pramila Jayapal D-WA), tweeted: ‘Just a reminder that from 2014-2018, Elon Musk paid an effective tax rate of 3.27%. The average working family pays an average tax rate of 13%. It's time for a wealth tax in this country.’
But Musk is already paying a massive sum of money in taxes—somewhere in the range of $8 billion to $15 billion for 2021, according to estimates from various media sources. ‘I will pay more taxes than any American in history this year,’ Musk tweeted last December.
Indeed, Warren conveniently didn’t mention that information, nor any of the additional data Nolan Brown offers at Reason:
Musk's income puts him in the top federal income-tax bracket, where income is currently taxed at 37 percent.
According to ProPublica, Musk's average effective federal income tax rate between 2013 and 2018 was 27 percent.
And the tax on exercising his Tesla stock options was much higher. 'Since the options are taxed as an employee benefit or compensation, they will be taxed at top ordinary-income levels, or 37% plus the 3.8% net investment tax,' notes CNBC. 'He will also have to pay the 13.3% top tax rate in California since the options were granted and mostly earned while he was a California tax resident. Combined, the state and federal tax rate will be 54.1%.'
Ms. Warren, as you screech and whine and cast aspersions at Mr. Musk, how about you keep in mind that he just paid your salary, and funded a lot more that you forced him to fund?
Does it ever cross your mind to stop being a shifty, brilliantine, blue-blood, demonizer and utter political parasite? Or are you too busy making slippery claims, even as you wax fascistic about controlling speech online?
Perhaps, also, Ms. Warren, you could stop claiming that any amount of taxes that you think someone escaped is, somehow, a “subsidy,” as if the money wasn’t actually earned by the person who was fortunate enough to keep a bit of it?
Indeed, dear reader, did you notice that Warren portrayed someone being able to keep some earned cash as a “subsidy,” while she conveniently left out REAL subsidies the feds have given to two of Mr. Musk’s companies?
The L.A. Times points out that Elon Musk’s business ventures have already been tapping into those subsidies he despises so much. Tesla Motors, Inc., SolarCity Corp, and even Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) are reported to have collected roughly $4.9 billion in government subsidies. An analyst with Jefferies Equity Research, Dan Dolev, said, ‘He definitely goes where there is government money,’ referring to Elon Musk’s business strategy.
But to target the federal handouts would be to criticize a powerful unconstitutional and immoral tool that Warren and her friendly fascist fund-controllers in DC appear to be more loathe to relinquish than Hitler was the Rhineland.
Instead, she paints his earned income as belonging to the hive, and even does service to the leftist narrative that “fairness” also comes in the form of the ill-named “wealth tax,” on stuff he’s not even sold to make any cash.
Writes Nolan Brown about the more overt attack on Musk by Jayapal:
Jayapal appears to have come up with the alleged 3.27 percent tax rate for Musk by including unrealized gains in the amount she thinks he owes taxes on (while using the standard method for calculating the average income tax rate). However, unrealized gains are, by definition, gains that Musk doesn't yet have. When he actually realizes the gains, he will be required to pay taxes on them. That's how it works.
I could quote even more “liberally” from Ms. Brown’s excellent piece, but, for the sake of brevity, I recommend that, in the course of your day, you hit the hyperlink, and read it all, including her coverage of how such a wealth tax likely is unconstitutional.
I’ll conclude with the second big portion of Warren’s “The Beat” answer:
The second part is we need rules of the road for big tech. But ultimately, what all of this boils down to is power. Who’s going to have the power in our country? Are we going to make these decisions as a democracy, or is this going to be Elon Musk all by himself off in a room, a bazillionaire who just plays by his own set of rules, and that’s really what’s at stake here.
Ms. Warren’s fraudulent attempt to portray herself as the defender of “the people” – even as she tries to stifle speech – and to paint Musk as some tyrant – as he tries to OPEN Twitter to more speech – is jaw-dropping. Only a long-term, little-hope-of-recovery narcissist could engage in such blatantly fatuous gaslighting.
But her attempt to portray the tech industry as part of her adored “democratic” collective is even worse.
It would be one thing if she spoke out against the feds granting unconstitutional “corporate” status, favors, and legal protections on businesses. But Warren never would do that, because that government power to hand out favors is essential to her operating system.
Instead, she will shoot for more government control over speech, despite the fact that she stands out as one of the least trustworthy politicians in recent memory, and her Constitution strictly forbids her from doing precisely that which she desires.
Rep. Jeffries got a much needed reality check. pic.twitter.com/1XXYdFx6BE— MRCTV (@mrctv) May 2, 2022